Post on 13-Oct-2020
Open and Distance Education in India
Team Name: Dr. Jyotsna Jha, Neha Ghatak, Padmaja Pancharatnam, Puja Minni, Shobita Rajgopal, Shreekanth Mahendiran and
Thyagarajan R
Funded by: MacArthur Foundation
2
Why India Needs Open and Distance Learning
Transition to Secondary: LOW
Secondary Schools: SPARSE
Opportunity Cost : HIGH
Only 63.2% in relevant age-
group enrolled
3
Who are not currently enrolled in the formal schools ?
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
45.00
50.00
Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
ST SC OBC General Total
Distribution by Income Quintile, Caste and Sex
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
4
Open Schooling in India
ODL In India
Pan-India Presence
National Institute of Open Schooling
(NIOS)
Individual State-wide Presence
State Open Schools (SOS)
Features of ODL System in India
• All year Admissions • Wide Range of Subjects • Bi-Annual and On-
Demand Examinations • Five Years for completion
Flexibility
• Rural and Urban Centers • Different languages • Online resources
Accessibility
5
Background – enrolment in NIOS
6
Distribution of Enrolment
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013
Rural Urban Total
Male Female
GR
GR
GR
Rural Urban
7
Understanding the practices (NIOS/SOS) and experiences of learners Primary survey data in two Indian states: Rajasthan and Andhra
• Objective Understanding intended and actual practices of flexibility and
accessibility for various stages in Open and Distance Learning (ODL) in India
Understanding experiences of learners and tutors in the ODL system in India
• Sample Purposive sample
Rajasthan: (1000 Learners) – NIOS: 700 SOS: 300
Andhra: (1000 learners) – NIOS: 563, SOS: 437
Two sates combined: Secondary – 1096; Senior Secondary – 894
8
Why Rajasthan and Andhra ?
Enrolment in NIOS / SOS:
HIGH
Age-appropriate Enrolment:
LOW
Well-established
ODL Systems
Sex-wise Disparity: High in Rajasthan;
Present in Andhra
ODL System Related Reason
Conventional School System
Related Reason
9
Who accesses the ODL System?
Rajasthan Andhra
Self-employed in non-agricultural activities-3.5% Full time students-33%
Self-employed in non-agricultural activities- 11% Full time students-34%
32% passed the last class attended (higher for SOS)
71% passed the last class attended (equal for NIOS and SOS)
Age group % 15 to 18 years - 47.8% 19 to 30 years - 42.4% 31 to 40 years - 6.8%
Age group% 15 to 18 years - 64.36% 19 to 30 years - 13.96% 31 to 40 years - 2.11%
10
Reaching Prospective Learners: Design/Intended vs Actual
Intended Means of Reach (Source: Institutional documents)
Actual reach (Source: Primary Survey)
Mass Media (Newspaper / Radio / TV)
NIOS: 6.7% in Rajasthan and 4.5% in Andhra had seen advertisement in national daily SOS: 1% in Rajasthan and Andhra
Awareness drives by Accredited Institutions (AIs)
Teachers (15.95) in AIs acted as important source of information
Website for Information
NIOS : 30% in Rajasthan and 4% in Andhra Rajasthan SOS: 9% Andhra SOS: 1.8 %
11
Reaching Prospective Learners: Who were the real sources?
Mai
n S
ou
rces
of
Info
rmat
ion
Teachers of Previous Schools
Friends/Family who had enrolled
Agents / Middlemen
12
Flexibility in the ODL System
INTENDED ACTUAL PRACTICES
All-year Round
Transfer for Credits
Different Streams for those who passed/failed previous class
Wide Range of Subjects without pre-categorisation
Minimal fee with concessions for disadvantaged groups
No Maximum Age specified
Easy Availability of Prospectus
Easy-to-fill Form 10% in Rajasthan 50% in Andhra self-filled forms
13
Academic Support
13
INTENDED ACTUAL PRACTICES
Self-learning materials Available but learners find it difficult to understand on their own
Contact Classes at registered Accredited Institutions
NIOS: Not conducted in both states. Rajasthan SOS: Not conducted Andhra SOS: Regular contact classes
Website for different resources NIOS: 23% (Raj); 20% (AP): 23% Rajasthan SOS: 16.7%
Tutor-Marked Assignments No uniformity across Rajasthan AIs APSOS learners – at least submitted one assignment
Special Tutor Training for ODL classes None of the Tutors interviewed had attended any such training
14
ODL System: Deviations
o Role of Agents/Middlemen prominent in
Accessing prospectus
Filling out forms
Selection of subjects
o High Out-of-Pocket expenditure despite low fees – due to private tuitions for academic support, books, transport and stationary
Fee Out of Pocket Expenditure
Rajasthan Andhra Pradesh
NIOS
Max. INR 2,200
INR 5,153
INR 6,332
SOS INR 3,119
INR 5,512
15
Breakup of Costs (INR)
Rajasthan (INR) Andhra (INR)
Tution 1443.95 (0 --40000 ) 890.534 (0--3200)
Examination 1474.267 (0--80000)
1030.95 (0 --12000)
Other 1126.76 (0--74000) 1145.65 (0--7700)
Books 134.437 (0--6600) 273.16 (0--5000)
Stationary 103.1128 (0--1900) 554.46 (0--5000)
Uniform 30.78698 (0 --3000)
11 ( 0--4000)
Transport 19.17306(0--7000) 2022.7 (0--6000)
Private tution 19.17306 (0--6000) 47.4 (0--5000)
16
Conducting Examinations
16
INTENDED PRACTICES ACTUAL PRACTICES
Bi-Annual Public Examinations
Weekly On-Demand Examinations for NIOS
Can appear for as many number of subjects per public examination
Five years / Nine attempts per subject to complete the course
Probability of completion is highest in Year 1; declines sharply in next 4 years (Paper presented by CBPS in PCF)
Local Language allowed for writing examinations
Examination center close to the learner NIOS: Learners reported that they had to travel longer distances
Strict and rigorous monitoring
Accredited Institute Management officials hinted at non-substantial monitoring Agents had guaranteed completion
17
17
18
Profiles of Learners who access NIOS
Logit model
Yi = α + β1Location +β2Sex +β3Employment+ β4 marital status+ β5 Religion+ β6 Age+Ɛi;
where, Y = whether a learner is enrolled in NIOS and SOS, and Ɛ = error variable.
• Model estimated separately for Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh
19
Learner Profiles: NIOS vs SOS
Parameter Rajasthan Andhra
Location No difference No difference
Sex NIOS: Male; SOS: Female NIOS: Male; SOS: Female
Employed NIOS: No; SOS: Yes No difference
Economic status NIOS: Higher ; SOS: Lower No difference
Marital status NIOS: Unmarried SOS: Married
NIOS: Unmarried SOS: Married
Religion NIOS: Minority SOS: Hindu
NIOS: Hindu SOS: Minority
Age NIOS: Younger SOS :Older
NIOS: Older SOS: Younger
20
What’s Being Used and What’s Not?
What’s Being Used
• On-Demand Examinations
• Subject-choice – however for different reasons
What’s Not Being Used
• Flexibility for completion
• Contact Classes • Tutor-Marked
Assignments • Technology focus • Awareness campaigns • Use of Reading
Materials
21 1/23/2017
MAJOR CONCLUSIONS
Wide Information
Gaps
Education vs Certification
Challenging Technology
Complexity of the Design
Lack of Skills to Maneuver Websites
Lack of Access to Computers &
Internet
Rise of Agents / Middlemen due to Technology and Information Gaps
Inaccessibility due to ALL
ONLINE processes
Less focus on education
Motivation for Certification
Doesn’t encourage Girls to break cultural barriers
Never-Enrolled Not Reached
No Bridge-course Element
Higher Enrolment of Boys
22
Thank You!
23
Annexure
24
Does flexibility increase the probability of completion?
• Ordinal Logit Model Estimation
Yi,d,s,t= αi,d,s,t + β1 Caste*Sexi,d,s,t + β2 X i,d,s,t + β3 state dummies + B4 time dummies + Ɛi,d,s,t
• Y (Dependent Variable) 0 – Not completed;
1 – Completed in one year
2 – Completed in 1.5 years
3 – Completed in 2 years
4 – Completed in 2.5 years
5 – Completed in 3 – 5 years.
25
Does flexibility increase the probability of completion?
• X includes
Age group (Categorical Variable)
Education qualification before enrolling with NIOS (Categorical Variable)
Mother’s Education (Categorical Variable)
Transfer of credit (Dummy Variable)
Total number of subjects taken (Continuous Variable)
Medium of Instruction (Dummy Variable)
Sector (Dummy Variable)
Income (Categorical Variable)
26
Predicted Probabilities
27
Predicted Probabilities